Do you listen to reviewers?

[Furn_Darkside]

I disgree, Colonel. A setting can have fantasic elements but still have its own internal logic and consistency. For example, I know that you're a big Middle Earth fan. How would you feel if Decipher put out a new LotR monster book and it had creatures akin to those clockwork critters from Planescapes' Mechanus.

That is true, that a setting needs to follow its own "rules", but I have seen many people go overboard and take their own rl expertise and rip apart a game for not meeting their knowledge on a subject.

7th Sea got a lot of that- mostly from boat-geeks who would write essays on why certain boats in the game should not exist.

Worse then reviewers are players who do that in-game, I try to avoid running a modern rpg game that will involve an interaction with some type of law enforcer in the group.. the cop in the group would have a fit if I took any liberties.

FD

 

[JoeGKushner]

Confession time:

But they'd sent it to me for free. It seemed to me to be terribly ungrateful to post a negative review of it.
Daniel

I've never had this problem. Hated the Maze series from Necromancer Games, for example, but loved What Evil Lurks. Not overly crazy about half of Assassins' Handbook, but loved Hammer & Helm.

If there are bad things in a book that they've given you, it's up to you to tell them so that their future products can become better. After all, Mystic Eye Games, Otherworld Publishing, and even AEG can only improve when we tell them what's wrong.

 

[Tharkun]

I always try and find reviews about a product I know nothing about yet I may be interested in buying so it's worth it to see if I'm going to get burned (especially with me being in college yea me!).

As for other things I've gotten some things purely just from a couple reviews (but the games are classics) [Traveller, the original] for instance.

 

[Psion]

If there are bad things in a book that they've given you, it's up to you to tell them so that their future products can become better. After all, Mystic Eye Games, Otherworld Publishing, and even AEG can only improve when we tell them what's wrong.

I think you'll learn that there are some authors out there who can separate the authentic points from the grousing and make a genuine effort to improve their work. Then there are others who will always take any criticism as without merit and continue to put out crap.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I disgree, Colonel. A setting can have fantasic elements but still have its own internal logic and consistency. For example, I know that you're a big Middle Earth fan. How would you feel if Decipher put out a new LotR monster book and it had creatures in it akin to those clockwork critters from Planescapes' Mechanus?

I understand internal consistency. That's not what was at issue. The reviewer was trouncing the setting because the background material didn't add up, in the reviewer's opinion. In essence, the reviewer rationalized why it could never have come about in the first place. Let me give a made-up example that is along the lines of what was in the review: I'm reviewing a product in which Orcs and Bugbears rule the world. Then I go into detail why this setting couldn't exist or would fall apart based on my assertion that Orcs and Bugbears would never cooperate. That's more of a subjective opinion rather than the discovery of a quantifiable flaw.

 

[Desdichado]

What I like about reviews are the products that I'm not sure about. I like reviews that give good breakdowns of the content, so I can better decide if that's what I'm looking for or not. I also like reviews about products that I'm just not sure about the quality of. If reviews come back saying it's great, and otherwise I'm interested, I'll pick it up.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

For me:

As a buyer: I tend to just skim reviews. I look for descriptions of content, and note any specific examples of truly wonky rules, ala a PrC with D20 HD + 20 skill points per level + Fighter BAB + Monk saves.

As a writer: I look at reviews of my stuff, though always with a grain of salt. I ignore "rant" reviews, I look for legitimate criticisms(and compliments) and account for differences in personal taste. I set multiple reviews side by side and look for common positives and common negatives.

In either case, I always keep in mind that reviews are simply expressions of personal opinion. Personally, I'm a fan of what many people call "fluff", which sets my opinion at odds with many reviewers, but I'm still interested in what different viewpoints have to say.

Patrick Y.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Speakin of reviews, anyone got a review of the Monsternomicon yet? All I've really heard so far is that it's pretty.

No review yet, but I got it at GenCon. As you say, pretty book. Lots of cool, interesting monsters that I can imagine actually using on a regular basis. I particularly like the "obscure knowledge" entry for each monster, giving you common knowledge and obscure knowledge about a given creature. The addition of one or two hooks per monster help a DM to figure out the kinds of adventures to use a creature in.

I'd recommend it; it's definitely my favorite non-WoTC monster book.

 

[Corinth]

But they'd sent it to me for free. It seemed to me to be terribly ungrateful to post a negative review of it.

This is never a problem for me.

 

[Pielorinho]

This is never a problem for me.

It shouldn't be for me either. Stupid Southern genteel training.

Daniel